Enter your email to subscribe:

An attorney who was convicted of a number of criminal offenses in New Jersey relating to the conversion of a $75,000 settlement was suspended for three years by the New York Appellate Division for the First Judicial Department. The conviction is described in the court's opinion:

...respondent was convicted, after a jury trial, in Superior Court of
the State of New Jersey, Union County, of one count of theft by failure
to make required disposition of property in the third degree (NJ Stat
Ann § 2C:20-9), one count of misapplication of entrusted property in
the third degree (NJ Stat Ann § 2C:21-15) and two counts of forgery in
the fourth degree (NJ Stat Ann § 2C:21-1a[2], [3]). He was sentenced to
three years' probation, 500 hours community service, and a fine of
$5,000, plus assessments.

Respondent's theft convictions resulted from his failure to pay
certain clients their $50,000 portion of a $75,000 settlement payment,
received in January 1999 in connection with the settlement of the
clients' wrongful death action relating to the death of their son.
Respondent deposited the $75,000 check into his attorney trust account,
which had a balance of $250 the previous day. Respondent then depleted
most of the funds in the escrow account within two days, by writing
checks to pay clients and other firm obligations. The forgery
convictions were based on his forgery of the clients' signatures on the
settlement check, which was made payable to respondent's law firm and
the two clients. Respondent eventually made payment of the $50,000 to
his clients in December 1999, but only after he became aware of a
police investigation into his conduct. After an ethics investigation
was commenced, respondent consented to his immediate and temporary
suspension in New Jersey in 2000.

The attorney was suspended in New York on an interim basis in 2003. The conviction, except for the forgery, was reversed on appeal because ethics rules were submitted to the jury without proper instructions. A referee recommended a suspension in New York that would have reinstated the attorney, which the court rejected in favor of a suspension that will run from the date of the decision here.

The Referee's recommended sanction of a three-year retroactive
suspension to January 2004, which would have already expired in January
2007, is too lenient.
While a two-year suspension might be appropriate if the misconduct was
limited to the forgery, respondent's additional misconduct in making
false representations to his clients and his temporary use of such
funds to pay personal or firm obligations warrants a more severe
sanction. Also relevant is respondent's minimal expression of remorse,
since it provides this Court with a basis to evaluate whether
respondent is deserving of a chance to practice law again in this State
in the near future. In sum, having considered respondent's convictions
of the serious crimes of fourth-degree forgery, his misrepresentations
and use of escrow funds, and the aggravating and mitigating
circumstances previously mentioned, we conclude that a suspension of
three years is the appropriate sanction.